The Petitioner sought to run his own marketing, advertising, and media consultancy in Florida, helping U.S. small and midsize businesses expand their advertising and grow into Latin American markets.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process”

“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”

“he has not shown that his company's future staffing levels and business activity stand to provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States”

“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”

  AAO decision text
• recommendation letter · discounted

  “do not contain sufficient information and explanation ... to show that his proposed work offers broader implications ... that rise to the level of national importance”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · discounted

  “relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework ... The issue here is whether the specific endeavor ... has national importance”

  AAO decision text
• other · credited

Where this case turned

• Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
• Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
• Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The AAO found only prong one dispositive and expressly declined to reach prongs two and three, yet the boilerplate closing language ('with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision') suggests multiple independent grounds even though only one prong was actually analyzed.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291
• Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers